Mirage 20-40: Heads-up hand with bottom pair

I played some heads-up 20-40 at the Mirage today while waiting to get into the main game. The staff was trying to get a second game started but a couple players didn't want to play short-handed and left the table. That left me with a semi-maniacal player (especailly pre-flop) who was willing to play heads-up. So we did for about 20 minutes before I was called to the main game.


This player is recklessly aggressive pre-flop in a full ring game. He'll raise in EP with stuff like K5o and J6s as long as he's the first to enter the pot. Once somebody else has entered the pot, he's not nearly as crazy with his raises but he'll still limp with lots of garbage. Post-flop he plays much better but will chase a lot.


All these traits should make him a difficult player to play heads-up. But, I was in the mood to test my skills.


The hand:


My opponent is the small blind and on the button. He open-raises. I've got Kd5d in the big blind and call his raise.


The flop is: 9s,8s,5s


I'm first to act on the flop.


What is your strategy for playing the entire hand?

The play of this hand is completely dependant upon the flow of the game and the style of your opponent (and yourself for that matter). As with most heads-up situations, there is no way anyone can really help you with this unless they were there to see previous hands. Basically go with your gut feeling on what you should do. If it is wrong then next time your gut feeling will be different.

I think this is a very hard problem. All I know is that you probably shouldn't fold the flop. Thats it. If I could answer this question, I would be a great head up player.

check raise the flop, and bet it down.

if he reraises flop, call him down.


Sammy

I may not have worded my response perfectly but please tell me why it was nonsense.


PS--JV is right you probably shouldn't check-fold the flop.

As with most heads-up situations, there is no way anyone can really help you with this unless they were there to see previous hands. Basically go with your gut feeling on what you should do


This is what I considered total nonsense.


Your statement implies that heads-up play can't be analyzed similarly to the way ring-game play is analyzed in the Mid-, High Stakes Forum (or in any other context).


I've heard/read statments like "Heads-up play is all about playing the player". While knowledge of your opponent is critical, the application of the principles of poker strategy is at least equally important.


You should not make your poker plays based on your "gut feeling" and then hope that "gut feeling" is correct. There has to be more to expert heads-up play than that.


In this specific hand, I had something to showdown- bottom pair of 5's. But, due to the flushed board, I could choose to play my hand different ways including semi-bluff bettng and check-raising (Or maybe I'm just value betting). However, I could also check-call and try to pick off overcards bluffing at the dangerous board.


As far as my opponent, I gave the best description of him that I could without making it excessively long. There weren't many previous hands since we only played a total of twenty minutes, the dealer was intentionally dealing slowly (because I asked her too), and this hand was about half-way through the session.


I'd like to hear the opinions of posters on how to deal with this situation beyond the "gut feeling" approach because I was largely lost when I saw the flop. I'd still like to hear more of your opinions as well.


If I genuinely hurt your feelings, I apologize.

Hi Dynasty,


I've been thinking about this for the past few days and it has been really interesting to try to figure out what could be best...You have a very weak bottom pair that could very well be best. I think you could go about the hand in 2 different ways. Try to make him fold with a strong bluff or try to make him blead off chips.


This early in the session I would tend to take the approach of trying to get him to blead off chips, due to the overly aggressive nature of the opponent...Check call the whole way or maybe bet the flop then check call the later streets if you get played with on the flop. The problem I see with semi bluffing or bluffing this board is your opponent is aggressive and with this scary of a board may very well play back at you trying to represent a bigger hand and thus perhaps cause you to second guess your read and make mistakes. Playing it passively will lose you the least if he does in fact have a better hand or if he gets there, but you also might net a profit in the session by taking advantage of his agression when you hold something like a weak bottom pair and let him bluff his way through the hand....


Allan

1-1 holdem hands are not played in a vacuum. Every hand affects every other hand. The reason you almost never see posts here about specific 1-1 hands is that there is no reasonable way to give enough info so that a right/wrong answer can be decided. In your hand, it is close between check-calling, check-raising, and betting out on the flop. You want your opponent to fold. If your opponent won't fold anything other than his absolute worst hands and will bet anything the whole way then check-calling is probably best. If your opponent is looser and more agressive on the flop but slows down on later streets then you have other options, such as check-calling the flop and betting the turn no matter what comes. Of course, you may want to bet out if the flush card comes regardless depending on how scared your opponent is of scary boards. These things vary from player to player and moment to moment. If you checkraised the last 3 flops, you probably don't want to checkraise because his calling/reraising standards are likely to be looser and you are putting more bets in with a marginal hand than necessary, etc... No way of playing this hand other than the obvious don't put 10 bets in on the flop, etc... is always wrong, even against an "agressive" opponent. The black-box opponent solution is fairly irrelevant in close situations like this one. This is why a bot playing using perfect game theory will win significantly less than an expert player against many opponents (especially the bad ones...the ones you should be playing in the first place).


Against an opponent you only know to be agressive, check-call. This is likely not the best option, but given the board it is unlikely you are going to hit upon the way to get your opponent to fold which you may know if you had played with this person more. You open yourself up to giving free cards and losing more when you are behind, but since you are out of position it is hard to overcome this. You really don't want to be forced to fold a winner or to put in multiple bets when you are behind. If you knew more about your opponents tendencies so that you could maybe get him to fold, or if you can put in the same number of bets with YOU being the agressor, then those things would obviously be better. These things, if done wrong, can easily backfire and cost you many bets, or at least drive your variance way up. I apologize for using the words "gut feeling". What I meant was, since you were there you probably had some idea of what to do, and it was likely best. It is not voodoo. However, it is also not like the medium stakes forum as you mentioned. It IS playing the player. If you don't want to belive that, fine. There are some fairly rigid solutions to the heads-up problem that will make you a small winner against bad opposition. If you want to be truly successful, however, you must CONSTANTLY adapt.


Think about the problem you mentioned. You are not an idiot. You know a fair amount about poker. Yet, the situation was mystifying to you. You are smart enough to at least have some idea how to play your cards, yet you were stumped. That is because you were looking in the wrong place. You should have been looking across the table. Your EV with those cards on this hand if you were playing yourself is likely fairly close to 0 (you have something, but 1)you can easily be outdrawn, and 2)you can easily be outplayed since you are out of position). Knowing or not knowing your opponent can swing that number A LOT.


PS-You did not and could not hurt my feelings.


-g-

The reason you almost never see posts here about specific 1-1 hands is that there is no reasonable way to give enough info so that a right/wrong answer can be decided...It IS playing the player.


I don't agree with this.


I think the reason people don't offer good advice on heads-up play is that there isn't a body of text available for them to study from. It's much easier to offer advice on a full ring game because people have read/studied HEPFAP and have consderable playing experience in full games.


However, in heads-up play, almost everybody is starting from scratch. There is no book to read. There is no source of information to study from. And, there is no dialogue to participate in. As a result, players are falling back on the "play the player" approach rather than applying the principles of heads-up poker strategy.

First, I don't consider myself a good HU player, and I surely would like to see some of the great online HU players to respond to this post. Maybe a bobcards can post something useful ;-)


A few considerations pop in mind:

-Bottom pair (good kicker) can very well be enough against an overaggressive opponent, even on a flushed board.

-When you check the flop, your opponent will bet virtually 100% of the time.

-If you play aggressively he might very well play back with less, due to his overaggressive nature

-You don't want to give a free turncard to a hand that beats you, because you could have a lot of outs against you (flushcard+overcards to your pair)


So, on the flop I would opt check-calling. This is because if I bet out I am likely to get raised by a lot of hands and therefore putting myself in a difficult position. Also check-raising can create problems. What if he 3-bets (because he could likely do it with a big flushcard as well)? What if he calls?


Now, if a none flushcard comes on the turn I would bet out. And even call him down when raised (not sure when a flushcard comes on the river...but I think you can fold then). If he just calls, I would check-call the river on every card (unless I improve with a none-flushcard, then bet).


So that would be my strategy. Check-call the flop, and bet the turn if a none flushcard comes.


Any comments greatly appreciated.


Regards

Flop: 9s8s5s


Your hand: Kd5d


Opponent's likely cards before the flop: Who knows


Your goals:


(1) make him fold early


(2) Since that is somewhat unlikely in head-up hands at an early stage where he was the preflop raiser, play it in a way where you can get somewhat of a better read on his hand by the turn or river


(3) Once you have narrowed his range of holdings, play the river properly by either avoiding a pay-off, value betting or bluffing as the case may be. This (of course) depends a lot on the turn and river cards and the turn betting action.


When these goals are viewed as a package, my preference would be to bet out on the flop. This may well mean I am going to get raised no mater what he has (that depends on what he makes of my bet). I'll call that raise.


But the dynamics of the hand after a flop bet and call raise are much different than if I were to just checkcall the flop:


1. Firstly, I have got him more worried that I either have a hand or perhaps drawing to a good spade which might allow a bluffing opportunity at the river


2. Knowing that I have him at least slightly worried, I can play the turn in such a way as to try and then get a beter read of his hand if I am still in the dark (which I very well might be).

"I'd like to hear the opinions of posters on how to deal with this situation beyond the "gut feeling" approach because I was largely lost when I saw the flop"


when i saw that flop in your post and your hand i wanted to know what your opponent thought of you. because what he thinks of how you play will help determine your chances of getting a better hand to fold and getting called by worse hands.

knowing what you know about him is not enough here, we need to know what he thinks of you.


in general id say that since you are out of position, since he is aggressive and unpredictable, and since you only have a bottom pair of 5s (as opposed to a bottom pair of 8s or Js or something) which is quite vulnerable you could never be far from right in just folding and waiting for an at least marginally better opporunity.

you're may be demanding. No one can deny that.


Your also ignorant- and self-absorbed. You wont last long.

And by the way- moron- dont tell me what comes on the turn and river doesnt matter. I give you til the end of the year- and youll be broke.

Hi all.


I would bet the flop. If called I would check-fold the turn. If he checks the turn, I would check-call the river.


I would not like to play this hand strongly.


No way you get him to lay down a better hand, no way he lays down a medium to big spade. And even if you beat him right now, there are so many ways for him to improve, or push you out of the pot. The only cards I would like to see on the turn are 5s and Ks, but only offsuit. These I would certainly play aggressive on the turn and river if no spade hits.


But all in all, I would just wait for better opportunity to take his money.


A higher pair (even if bottom pair) I would call down, as there are fewer cards that can beat me.


Greets, Erd.

I've got Kd5d


The flop is: 9s,8s,5s


I checked the flop and my opponent checked behind me.


The turn is: 9s,8s,5s,Kh


I bet my two-pair and my oppponent folded. I'd put him on something like Ac4h or 33.


Obviously, the results aren't nearly as interesting as the problem. That's why I waited so long to post them.

Just curious. Were you planning to check-fold, check-call or check-raise.

I think maybe you are being too formal, maybe a better way to state what I think Glenn was trying to say is: previous hands, the mood and flow of the game, and your opponents perception of you is very important and probably more important in a short game than full. It is hard to say what the best strategy is in a particular situations w/o knowing these things.


I don't think one can conlude that you cannot analyze short handed hands as result...

exactly. the play the player response is another way of saying "I don't know, nobody made me a nice little chart". I'm not saying it's an easy problem or that the answer isn't player dependent; but virtually everything in cards is player dependent and people don't have trouble throwing around their 'opinions' when it's on a well documented topic.